More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1]
"Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now.
It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty.
That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same
pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and
preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions
on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power.
Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument).
The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway.
(I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
